Stage3Motorsports

We've been seeing some new guys ask about Catch Cans and oil separators, so we figured we'd help out with some of the basics. Also check out our blog post and install videos for even more info on F150 catch cans and oil separators. For the folks that have been around the forum and these trucks for a while, feel free to let your eyes gloss over at yet another catch can thread.



The short version is that catch cans and oil separators capture oil blow-by from your F150's positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system before it enters your truck's intake tract. This is especially important on the EcoBoost trucks, since capturing blow-by oil vapor and moisture means greatly reduced intercooler pooling which then leads to decreased chances of the infamous "EcoBoost Shudder". Capturing blow-by oil also helps reduce valve coking issues -- since the direct-injected EcoBoosts don't have a washing action for their intake valves like rail-injected vehicles -- and can help keep your throttle body, intake tubing, and manifold cleaner.


Even if you're not concerned about shudder or valve coking (or you already drilled a weep hole in your intercooler), catch cans can still help with performance, since oil vapor has a an effective octane rating of like 46, which reduces your truck's overall octane rating by a slight amount.


For even more details, take a look at our blog post and check out some of our other catch can media.

Now that you know, what do you think? Are you loading your EcoBoost with a Catch-Can or No?

acdii

Whats this shudder you speak of? Have well over 100K on Ecoboost engines and have yet to experience it.

I have had one occurrence of water ingestion though, but figured out how to mitigate it and never had it happen again.

BTW has anyone scoped a high mileage EB and confirmed beyond any doubt that the valves coke?

chimmike

gen 2 ecoboost has port injection as well, so the dirty valves thing won't be a problem anymore.

acdii

Yeah, I get that, but snake oil? I read all this talk about valves coking, and have yet to see actual honest proof of it on the 3.5 Ecoboost, or any of the Ecoboost motors for that matter. That EB they beat the hell out of and tore down in front of a live audience didn't have coked valves either.

I would also like to see dyno runs to prove a catch can improves performance. A tune, upgraded suspension, exhaust systems, etc. yeah those are items I can see being pushed, but snake oil?

gDMJoe

For your listening pleasure and reading enjoyment ......

Eduskator

Ford has been producing the EB engines for almost 10 years... Don't you think there would be a factory one if it was really needed? lol

Spong

I recently installed a UPR Mega catch can on my 2013 EB. The same day, I installed a Stage 3 Phase 5 kit. The truck had 40,687 miles on it when I installed all these parts.

Here's a picture of the OEM plugs I replaced.



Last weekend I drove the truck taking the kids to a soccer tournament, roughly 45 miles highway round trip. Just for grins, when I got home, I opened the drain valve on the catch can. I was amazed at the milky white nasty crap that drained out. I was glad that mess wasn't being reburned in the engine. That's just my $0.02!

Martian

Cleaned.

Spong

One more thing I've like to add. I've been running a catch can on my 14 5.0 since new. I check the can about every 5k and there's always a small amount of oily gunk in it. By comparison, the amount of "gunk" my 5.0 puts out is nothing when compared to the 13 EB. After seeing the nastiness I drained from just one small highway trip, if I ever bought a new EB, the can would go on right away! A couple hundred dollars for peace of mind on a $50k+ vehicle is worth it to me.

Takeda

I wouldn't expect anything less from a Catch Can Snake Oil salesman!

The condensed crankcase by-product liquid that is seen in the catch can never enters the intake with the OEM PCV system. The crankcase by-products stay in vapor form, and enter the intake in extremely low concentrations.

Catch Can = GIMMICK

This article has been posted before:

Reader's post:
Our engines DO NOT need catch cans. They are made much better than the German and Japanese DI engines. You are wasting your money if you buy a catch can. Here is an article from Edmund's about DI engines from GM< Ford and Chrysler. It is a great article on this subject. Please read it and see how good GM's engines are compared to Audi's. You won't buy a catch can.

All Engines Not Designed Equally
Many automakers’ gasoline DI engines do not appear to exhibit any carbon build-up issues at all, however. Digging into online threads about Cadillac’s 3.6-liter DI V6 in its popular CTS lineup does reveal some owner concerns about carbon build-up, but it’s difficult to find even a single report that any build-up has actually occurred – a record that is notable considering that Cadillac has sold more than 200,000 CTS models with DI V6s (Audi sold fewer than 2,000 RS 4s in the US during its two-year sales run).

Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”

At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards – roughly what Boyadjiev’s RS 4 engine lost every 500 miles.

Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production.

Tony Chick, principal engineer at European Performance Labs in Stratford, Connecticut, has made a career of repairing and rebuilding high-performance engines from Audi, Porsche AG and BMW, among others and his operation has garnered a reputation among car enthusiasts as a go-to place for cleaning DI engines that have become choked with carbon. Chick thinks the problem for most affected engines can be traced to the breathing system – specifically, the design of its crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation components.

All modern gasoline engines return some crankcase and exhaust gases back through the intake manifold in order to help control emissions, but, according to Chick, some exhaust-gas recirculation designs are “dirtier" than others. Some, he said, are less-effective at preventing the passage of tiny bits of oil, carbon and other particulates that eventually get baked onto the intake ports and valves.



Chick reached his conclusion after inspecting dozens of different DI engines at his shop and finding some, like the V8 in Boyadjiev’s Audi RS 4, regularly choked with carbon while others, like the DI version of Porsche’s horizontally opposed 6-cylinder, remained much cleaner.

If he’s right, the rapid adoption of DI has actually illuminated an issue, not caused one. A “dirty” intake or exhaust-recirculation design can easily go undetected in a conventional port-injected engine due to the cleaning effect of gasoline passing over the intake valves. When the same engine designs are adapted to direct-injection fueling, however, that cleaning effect is suddenly lost – and the carbon layers can build.

There is no simple fix for engines that are prone to carbon build-up, Chick says. What’s needed is a complete redesign of the crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation systems to prevent particulates from getting through. Fortunately, the manufacturers whose engines are frequently cited in carbon build-up reports – mainly VW, Audi and Lexus – appear to have taken this step with many of their latest models. For instance, Audi’s new 3-liter supercharged V6, used in the S4 and A6 models, has so far been free from carbon-related complaints – a far cry from the 3.2 liter V6, which has numerous threads dedicated to the condition.

If Ford and GM engineers and Chick are correct, the carbon-buildup problem now may be relegated to previous engine designs that were not well-adapted for DI. But that’s probably little consolation to some early adopters like Boyadjiev, who must add regular carbon cleaning services to their cars’ ongoing maintenance requirements – a cost that, for now at least, they are expected to absorb entirely on their own as they grapple with the “dirty” secret of this emerging technology.

Mark Holthoff manages customer support for Edmunds.com.
Matt Landish oversees digital media development and publishing for Edmunds.com.

AutoObserver Staff: Mark Holthoff and Matt Landish